Pass ISC CISSP Exam in First Attempt Guaranteed!

This is a record of how the initial safeguard would be checked, not an action implementing the newly requested condition: Identity, screening authorization, agreement and approval records precede privileged access activation.

This is the appropriate response to the original situation: Sensitive roles need due diligence and explicit obligations consistent with applicable employment law. It does not directly meet the new condition.

This remains inappropriate: Premature privilege issuance exposes systems before trust and contract controls are established.

Shared permanent credentials prevent attribution and create unmanaged continuing access. The proposal would not be defensible for this case.

This is appropriate for a later condition (A device emergency requires vendor entry outside normal service hours.), but it does not directly resolve the initial need. A controlled break-glass path meets the new availability need without reinstating shared permanent passwords.

This response addresses a different condition: An HR offboarding feed arrives two days after employees leave, leaving active sessions and badges valid. The present case requires the measure described by Replace shared persistent access with individually accountable just-in-time privileged access and offboarding.

This is a limitation elsewhere: An organization hires privileged cloud engineers through a contractor without documenting acceptable background checks or nondisclosure terms. It does not explain the deficiency of the specified proposed approach.

This explains a later shift in requirements (A device emergency requires vendor entry outside normal service hours.), not the failure of the current proposal.

This is an advantage of another design (Apply lawful role-proportionate screening and signed confidentiality/access commitments before privileges are issued.), not the particular flaw of Keep one perpetual shared administrator password for every supplier technician.

This demonstrates controls in another circumstance: An HR offboarding feed arrives two days after employees leave, leaving active sessions and badges valid.

This other observation is relevant to: An organization hires privileged cloud engineers through a contractor without documenting acceptable background checks or nondisclosure terms.

An approved change without an executed test cannot prove operating effectiveness. The needed evidence is Access logs link named technician approvals, bounded sessions and removal of supplier rights.

This is the appropriate response to the original situation: Named access and expiry support accountability, revocation and least privilege. It does not directly meet the new condition.

This remains inappropriate: Shared permanent credentials prevent attribution and create unmanaged continuing access.

This is a record of how the initial safeguard would be checked, not an action implementing the newly requested condition: Access logs link named technician approvals, bounded sessions and removal of supplier rights.

Periodic review cannot replace immediate revocation on a known departure. The proposal would not be defensible for this case.

This is appropriate for a later condition (A departing engineer has organization-owned keys and laptops stored off-site.), but it does not directly resolve the initial need. Asset and secret custody is an additional offboarding requirement beyond account disablement.

This response addresses a different condition: An organization hires privileged cloud engineers through a contractor without documenting acceptable background checks or nondisclosure terms. The present case requires the measure described by Integrate authoritative HR termination events with prompt logical and physical access revocation.

This is useful evidence after implementation, rather than the FIRST recommended decision for this objective. The risk register shows residual probability and impact, accountable approver, chosen treatment and review date.

This addresses a distinct subsequent requirement: Management now rules out accepting the scenario and requires the exposure to fall below its tolerance. A revised appetite constraint calls for additional treatment, not an unchanged acceptance decision.

Technical operators do not automatically possess authority to accept material business risk. The rejected action is: Let a system administrator accept the remaining enterprise risk without reporting it.

The subsequent circumstance is separate and does not explain why this proposed action fails the initial case. A revised appetite constraint calls for additional treatment, not an unchanged acceptance decision.

Destroying records would weaken oversight and cannot remedy the immediate technical or governance flaw: Technical operators do not automatically possess authority to accept material business risk.

Approval alone cannot fix the specific weakness: Technical operators do not automatically possess authority to accept material business risk.

Absence of reported incidents is not a controlled validation of the requirement. A stronger proof is: The risk register shows residual probability and impact, accountable approver, chosen treatment and review date.

Discussion of a different design does not demonstrate the deployed control. A revised appetite constraint calls for additional treatment, not an unchanged acceptance decision.

An unexecuted future plan does not prove current effectiveness for the stated 1.9 objective. The evidence should include: The risk register shows residual probability and impact, accountable approver, chosen treatment and review date.

The earlier rejected approach remains inappropriate. Technical operators do not automatically possess authority to accept material business risk.

The new requirement needs an accountable response, not automatic deferral. A revised appetite constraint calls for additional treatment, not an unchanged acceptance decision.

This addresses the original situation: Risk acceptance belongs to authorized owners and must be compared with appetite and tolerances after controls. It does not directly meet the changed requirement: Management now rules out accepting the scenario and requires the exposure to fall below its tolerance.

Incorrect — it fails the original constraint. Executive attention alone is neither probability nor loss magnitude.

Incorrect — the measure Perform quantitative analysis of estimated event frequency and loss magnitude for each recovery option. addresses a different case: A manufacturer wants to compare loss from server downtime under different restoration speeds and has reliable annual incident data.

Incorrect — this evidence applies to another case: A manufacturer wants to compare loss from server downtime under different restoration speeds and has reliable annual incident data. The specified requirement here is A manufacturing risk assessment scores every scenario 'high' but lacks likelihood assumptions and cannot prioritize investment.